Sean Duffy

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4279) to direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to revise any rules necessary to enable closed-end companies to use the securities offering and proxy rules that are available to other issuers of securities, as amended.

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this bill.

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, closed-end funds are important retirement savings and investment vehicles for retail investors and serve as a long-term source of capital for operating companies, which helps promote job creation, research and development, and economic growth. Despite the many benefits of closed-end funds, the number of closed- end funds has been declining over the last several years. Closed-end funds occupy a unique space within a framework of regulated investment companies. They have opportunities to invest in small enterprises and stocks and bonds that they may issue that would not necessarily be ones that are open-ended or invested in by mutual funds. Since the SEC has adopted its 2005 offering reform for traditional operating companies, the SEC has had more than 12 years to consider a parallel framework for closed-end funds, but has failed to do so. H.R. 4279 would direct the SEC to draft rules as appropriate to permit closed-end funds to take advantage of the 2005 offering reforms. If the SEC does not finalize these rules within 1 year, closed-end funds that otherwise meet the requirements could take advantage of the 2005 offering reforms until the SEC adopts a rule. By simplifying the closed-end fund offering process and liberalizing existing restrictions on communications, the legislation would reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens that raise cost for investors. In turn, this would enhance the ability of closed-end funds to act as a source of financing for the economy. I think this is a commonsense piece of legislation. I would also note that, in a committee that often doesn't see a lot of bipartisanship, this bill passed out of committee with a vote of 58-2, signifying broad and wide support amongst the parties and from our committee. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hollingsworth), the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, this is a unique space where, oftentimes, we would look to the SEC to actually act. Because they haven't acted, I am proud to say I am part of a group in Congress that are willing to act proactively to make sure, again, we are protecting investors, protecting savers, but also helping capital flow into spaces that are so needed by this reform. Mr. Speaker, again, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this commonsense, bipartisan bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Gus Frank, Chairman of the Forest County Potawatomi Executive Council, who recently announced that he is retiring after 20 years of dedicated service to his tribe. Gus has worked tirelessly for the benefit of his people--and he's always done it with a smile on his face. I'm proud to have worked with Gus for several years on many issues affecting our communities and I'm proud to call him a friend. I congratulate him on his retirement. Gus has truly earned it.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, December 18, 2017, I missed the following votes and was not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 685, YEA on Roll Call No. 686, and YEA on Roll Call No. 687.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of Kati Milberg-Pavek in recognition of and in shared grief for the indefensible cyber abuse she faced following the deaths of her daughter and two nieces: Clara Diana Pavek, Lydia Marie Milberg and Laynie Jo Amos. On December 12, 2013, a terrible tragedy took the lives of three wonderful children. I was further saddened and disturbed by the unprovoked comments and harassment that the victims and their families subsequently faced on social media, as well as local news outlets and publications. As First Lady to the United States of America, Melania Trump has declared a campaign against cyber-bullying and reckless abuse, and like her I rise to condemn the hatred by these reckless individuals. Though my words can never reverse the awful heartbreak Ms. Milberg-Pavek and her family have suffered, I hope that by speaking out against victims' abuse, we can encourage those in control of online platforms to play a more active role in monitoring these hateful attacks, especially when innocent children are involved. No one should have to endure these types of spiteful on-line comments in the wake of a loss again, and I stand with those who actively seek to provide solutions for this growing problem. My deepest sympathies are with Ms. Milberg-Pavek and her family.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding time to me, the chairman of Financial Services, Mr. Hensarling. I appreciate his leadership and stewardship on our committee. Mr. Speaker, I want to get into the bill in a second, but I can't let the Dominican Sisters reference go. It is not the Dominican Sisters who are using proxy advisers. It is the largest financial investors in the world that are using these advisers, which we are going to get into in a little bit. And if you want to talk about sisters, I will talk about the Little Sisters of the Poor, who have been ravaged by ObamaCare because they can't practice their faith, if you want to talk about sisters. We are not going to go there today. Mr. Speaker, we are in a situation where, my friends, if you listen to the debate, you might say, ``Well, Republicans are asking for a little more regulation in the proxy advisory space,'' and Democrats, miraculously, are saying, ``We don't want any regulation.'' Well, our concern is that you have consolidated power in two companies that control 97 percent of the industry, and some have made the claim and the allegation that there might be political motivations behind both--or at least one--of these massive proxy advisory firms, because Glass Lewis is owned by the Ontario Teachers' Pension fund, and they might have a political agenda that might affect the recommendations that have a massive impact on American corporate governance. Maybe that could be the distinction between the two parties in today's debate. Mr. Speaker, we have covered this quite a bit, but I want to go into it again. The role of proxy advisory firms in the U.S. economy is incredibly important. It is important stuff. These firms counsel pension plans and mutual funds and institutional investors on how to vote their shares. No one is trying to get rid of proxy advisory firms. We think they are a good thing, but we think they should have a little bit of regulation and a little bit of oversight. I think it is troubling, when you look at the share of institutional ownership, in 1987, it was 46 percent. Today, that has grown to 75 percent, meaning that institutional investors control billions of shares. There was a recent study that was done by Stanford that says that asset managers with $100 billion or more under their control only make 10 percent of the decisions on these proxy issues, meaning they outsource 90 percent of the decisions to one of two firms, consolidating great power in these proxy advisory firms. This was pointed out before as well, but, again, two firms, 97 percent of the market share, writing analysis reports, voting recommendations that affect the fundamentals of corporate governance, mergers, acquisitions, approval of corporate directors, and shareholder proposals. What is of greatest concern is that these firms are not free of conflicts of interest. For example, in addition to providing recommendations to institutional investors about how to vote, proxy advisory firms may advise companies about corporate governance issues, rate companies on corporate governance, help companies improve those ratings, and advise proponents about how to frame a proposal to get the most votes. They are playing every side of the issue. They are getting every dollar from anybody who cares about the corporate governance space. They play everybody. And if you want access, you pay. I am going to give you an example in just a little bit of one of the hundreds of letters that I have received on this issue. But before I do that, I think it is important to say: What are we asking for? What is the radical idea that we brought to the floor today, which, by the way, had six Democrats' support? Mr. Scott commented about his support as well, and I know he had an issue about the cost that this would have on proxy advisory firms; but the CBO, which I rarely quote, did a study on this and said the cost to proxy advisory firms of this bill is minimal, if anything. I think his concern might be misplaced. But what are we asking to do here? We are asking for accountability. We are asking for transparency, responsiveness, and competition in the proxy advisory space. By doing that, we will improve corporate governance, and, in the end, we are going to protect investors. Specifically, again, this bipartisan bill will ensure that proxy advisory firms are registered with the SEC. They will disclose potential conflicts of interest. They will maintain a code of ethics and make publicly available their methodologies for formulating their proxy recommendations.

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I don't know what my friends across the aisle have about maintaining a code of ethics or disclosing potential conflicts of interest or instituting an ombudsman to resolve issues that might come up. This is commonsense stuff. This is good governance, and I would encourage all of my friends across the aisle to join us. Mr. Speaker, I want to read one part of a letter that I received that I think embodies what is going on in corporate America. I am not going to give the name of the company, but it says: Upon contacting ISS and seeking explanation on one of the recommendations, we were told there was a firewall between the ISS recommendation group and the ISS group that deals with corporate matters. Ultimately, we were advised that if we were willing to join ISS, which includes payment of a relatively substantial amount of money, we could have input in the recommendations before they were made. So, Mr. Speaker, pay for the input.

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, it goes on to say: Meanwhile, during our latest discussions we were again advised that we could avoid some issues by subscribing to ISS corporate services and thereby have some input before such recommendations are published. Mr. Speaker, of course, such a subscription would entail big payouts. It goes on to say: On the one hand, ISS makes wholly unsupportable, unreasonable, and irrational recommendations regarding corporate elections without investigation, regulatory support, or even contact with the victim company. While, on the other hand, seeking fees from the victim company for the privilege of influencing ISS's recommendations. Mr. Speaker, so what you have here is you have the mafia on the streets. So, lo and behold, your little shop on the street corner gets burglarized at 10 o'clock one night and at 8 o'clock in the morning, and lo and behold, the thugs come in and say: Do you want to buy some insurance? Do you want to buy some protection? Pay up. We will keep you safe. ISS, Glass Lewis, you pay up, and we can help you with your recommendation. We can help you with your ratings. Mr. Speaker, this is thuggery. Let's have a little commonsense oversight in this space. It is a good bill.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time. Before I get to my bill, if I could just address a few points that have been brought up in this debate, which I am surprised at the fact that the Rules Committee doesn't actually talk about the rule. We talk about a whole bunch of different issues, but maybe I am new to this game. I have to say that the gentleman from Georgia is correct. Infrastructure investment in the internet has gone down over the last 2 years. I would agree: If it is not broken, why did President Obama try to fix it? It was working really well for 20 years, and we had great innovation. In regard to the tax bill, that is being debated. I think we are looking at some unique arguments that are being made. The Democrats are over there and they are fighting for the poor middle class American, and all Republicans are fighting for the rich. It is a great line. I love the line. But let's look to the wealthiest communities in America. Go look right outside of D.C. Look in Northern Virginia. Are those wealthy communities, those counties in Virginia, are they Republican or Democrat? They are Democrat. L.A., San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, New York are all really rich communities that elect Democrats. The wealthiest and biggest corporations, think of the tech industry in California or the biggest in America. What are they? They are Democrats. And that is why. When the tax debate comes up, you see Democrats fighting for loopholes and preferences for their big, wealthy friends. And that is why, when Republicans here in this House said maybe to write off the mortgage interest on a $1 million home, that might be a little too much, maybe we should lower it to $500,000 of mortgage interest deductions, my Democratic friends freaked out. Oh, no, the poor, middle class people in my community who have a $1 million mortgage, they are just having a tough time getting by--that was the argument that was made, fighting for the loopholes and preferences for the wealthiest Americans, while we are fighting for the middle class. You talk about investment in my bill? You want to talk about pension funds? What has happened to pension funds in America? What has happened to American 401(k)'s? They have gone through the roof because we are lowering rules and regulations in a smart way, and we are going to reform our Tax Code to let families and businesses keep more of their income because they can spend it better than anyone in this town. They do it well. So if you want to tank the markets, do what you have been doing and tank tax reform. I want to get to my bill. This is on proxy advisory firms. I have taken awhile to get here, but the role of proxy advisory firms in the U.S. economy and shaping corporate governance is profound. These firms, they counsel pension funds and mutual funds and institutional investors on how to vote the shares of the corporations that they own. You think, well, that is pretty benign. That is not a big issue. Well, the shares of institutional investors' ownership in 1987 was 46 percent. Today, institutional investors own 75 percent of American corporations, billions of shares institutional investors control and look to proxy advisers for advice. There are just two firms that control 97 percent of the market. So two companies, basically, are having a huge influence on American corporate governance, and they are involved in the writing and analysis and reports and voting recommendations that affect fundamental corporate transactions like mergers and acquisitions, approval of corporate directors and shareholder proposals--a huge impact on corporate governance. And they are not immune from conflicts of interest. For example, in addition to providing recommendations to institutional investors about how to vote, proxy advisory firms may also advise companies about corporate governance issues, rate companies on corporate governance, help companies approve those ratings, and advise proponents about how to frame proposals to get the most votes. I am going to come back to that in a second, but there was a Stanford University study that said institutional investors with assets under management of $100 billion or more, they only make 10 percent of the voting decisions, which means they offload 90 percent to proxy advisory firms. So I don't know if you are familiar with the Mafia, but you have got the old storekeeper on the block, and he is robbed one night--right?-- gets beaten up and robbed, and the next day, the thugs come in and go: Hey, hey, I hear you were robbed last night. You pay a little fee, we'll take care of you and make sure you are not robbed anymore. That is exactly what proxy advisory firms are doing. They are like: Oh, you got a bad recommendation. Let me tell you what. You buy our services, and we can help you in the future. Just pay the ransom, and we will help take care of you in future recommendations. This is not the way corporate governance should work. So my bill brings transparency and accountability to proxy advisory firms.

Mr. DUFFY. I thought that is what Democrats want: making them more responsive; bringing more competition into the industry; making it better for investors; specifically, again, a bipartisan bill. Republicans and Democrats voted for this legislation. But we will ensure that proxy advisory firms are registered with the SEC. Oh, how bad is that, registering with the SEC, a little oversight? We are going to disclose potential conflicts of interest. How radical is that idea? Shouldn't we tell people that we have a conflict of interest, and shouldn't all parties be aware of it? I don't know why my friends across the aisle, or the gentleman from Colorado would be opposed to that. Maintain a code of ethics. That is not shocking. I think most people would agree to that point. And make publicly available the methodologies for formulating proxy recommendations and analysis. Again, this is transparency. This is a commonsense bill that both Republicans and Democrats have voted for because we have recognized-- and again, I am not a big regulation guy, as the gentleman from Colorado had pointed out. But when you consolidate a great deal of power in two companies that have a huge impact on American corporate governance, that makes a lot of people uncomfortable; and to have a little more oversight, to have a little more transparency, to have a little more accountability is a really, really good thing. Some of the smallest companies have been the biggest complainers about how these proxy advisory firms have held them hostage. So let's support the small innovators, the big job creators in America that are complaining about the big proxy advisory firms. Let's stand with them and the families that they employ, and the future families, if they are successful, that they will employ, and let's give a little more control to proxy adviser firms. I ask all to support this great bill.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise on behalf of the Congressional Friends of Finland Caucus in recognition of Finland's Centennial. For a generation of Finns, this is the most significant commemorative year in their lifetime. The significance of the anniversary comes with good reason. A century ago, on December 6, 1917, Finland declared itself an independent republic and rejected its status as an autonomous Grand Duchy of Russia. As is often the case, independence is not easily won. Soon after breaking away from Tsarist Russia, the country descended into civil war with neighbor pitted against neighbor. However, from the struggle of war, something incredible happened: the Finnish people emerged with renewed purpose and a new national identity. After 100 years of democracy, Finland has become a shining example to the world of what monumental achievements can be made in a short time. Today, Finland is the pinnacle of Nordic values and culture, a proud member state of the European Union, and a key political and economic partner of the United States. The deep relationships between the United States and Finland cannot be overstated. The United States is the third largest trading partner of Finland and in addition, around 250 Finnish- owned companies, which directly employ about 34,000 people, are based in the United States. Truly, US-Finland relations have never been stronger. And just a few short months ago, President Trump hosted President Niinisto at the White House. There the Presidents discussed Finland's leadership of the Artic Council, the coalition to defeat ISIS, and cybersecurity. Furthermore, President Trump pledged an additional half- million dollars to the Fulbright Finland Foundation so that the United States could send more of our brightest students to study and form lasting relationships in Finland. Our peoples share many common values and interests that make Finns and Americans readily identify with one another. Hard work and the drive to succeed have benefitted both our peoples and embody some of our most deeply-held virtues. In light of these shared interests and the strong relationship between our peoples, I congratulate all Finns on 100 years of independence. Continued cooperation between our nations will make Finland's second century as robust and vibrant as the first and my colleagues in the House and I look forward to closely working with our Finnish counterparts towards that end. Thank you, Finland, for being a valued friend to the United States and happy centennial.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an incredible young man, Tha Ying Xiong of Weston, Wisconsin, and congratulate him on receiving this year's Paul Bunyan's ``larger than life'' award. Paul Bunyan, with his trusty blue ox, Babe, was a larger-than-life figure in Wisconsin. And through his dedicated work in the Wausau region community, Tha Ying certainly exemplifies the term ``larger than life.'' Tha Ying serves his community as a member of the Help Making Our Next Generation (H.M.O.N.G.) Youth Program, a member of the ReUnited Dance Group, coordinator for the first Mr. Hmong Royalty competition, and has spent countless hours on behalf of the Hmong American Center fundraising and helping to fulfill the day-to-day operations that every organization needs to thrive. He is described as a leader among his peers, even by those who are much older than him. His selfless acts to improve the community around him serve as a true inspiration to us all and as a credit to the legacy of Paul Bunyan. Congratulations, Tha Ying.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama for yielding. First, I want to make a comment about how this process has gone in coming up with this compromise with the amendment on the flood insurance package. We have worked in the Financial Services Committee with outside groups, whether it was the home builders or the realtors or the insurance industry. We have worked with Members of Congress from the Gulf States and from the East Coast and from the West Coast. We worked with Democrats. We had a number meetings with the ranking member of the committee, all taking in their consideration, which has brought us to a compromise that I don't know that anybody loves, but everyone says is a pretty darn good bill that strives to make needed reforms in a program that hasn't been working well. When we have programs that don't work well, let's try to fix them. We have a program that, as was just mentioned, is $25 billion in debt, but that doesn't include the $16 billion we just gave the program and forgave. So really, it is $41 billion in debt. So when do we think through the policies of a program that continues to run deficits, number one, but, number two, continues to incentivize people to live in harm's way? I was down in Houston and I got to see a family who was talking about their next-door neighbor whose house was burning down. He was telling the story about his neighbor, and as the house started on fire, he sent the kids outside--like you would because your house is burning--as the flood waters are rising. The dad went to go put out the fire, and as he was putting out the fire, he looked out the window and saw his kids were being swept away by a flood. The current was too strong, so he ran outside to save his kids and let his house burn. What are we going to do in that neighborhood that had been flooded three times in the last 10 years? We are going to rebuild houses in the same flood plain. This doesn't make sense. Let's think about a reform that is going to improve the program, that helps people get out of dangerous areas and get into better areas that don't flood. Having a flooding house isn't a pleasant place to live. Not only that, first responders risk their lives to go save people, and they die. We are incentivizing through this policy to allow people to live in these dangerous areas. I don't have a lot of time left, but the reforms are going to, yes, gently increase some of the premiums for the most highly subsidized properties called the pre-FIRM properties. We offer over $1 billion in mitigation to help families flood-proof their home or get out of their home and go to a better place to live because this improves the solvency of flood insurance. We are helping them with mitigation. We are helping them with mapping, allowing communities that haven't been mapped to actually map themselves, to pay for it, to take care of their own future and destiny instead of waiting for the Federal Government. We allow for a private market to come in and offer you a premium that might be lower than the Federal Government. God forbid we offer a family a choice to let the private sector compete with a public offering. My God, if you get a lower price, that is great. If you don't get a lower price, you can stay in the Federal plan. My goodness, I am going to have some people come up in a second and say: But you could cherry-pick, and that could jeopardize the solvency of the program. The program is insolvent. It is $25 billion in debt--actually, $41 billion, if you include that $16 billion. It is not a solvent program. Just think if in Houston and in Florida we had people who had bought insurance in the private market, we would be saving taxpayers money. This is a commonsense bill that makes the program better, that helps families, that empowers communities. Let's stand together. A little bit of reform might go a long way in making government actually work, so I would encourage all of my colleagues on both side of the aisle to vote ``yes'' for common sense.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Hensarling for all his good and relentless hard work on this bill. I appreciate his tenacity. I want to thank Mr. Blumenauer for the comments that he just made. The two of us had not worked together on a lot of issues, but this is one we saw eye-to-eye, and, through flood, I think we have seen a lot of common ground and built a friendship together. I actually promised I was going to wear a bike today, and I haven't kept my promise. Later today, I will wear that for Mr. Blumenauer. But I want to talk about the debate we have had here today. This has been an effort at bipartisanship. On the Republican side, I have worked with Representatives Graves and Scalise and Zeldin and King and LoBiondo and MacArthur trying to bring in their concerns to this legislation. On the Democrat side, I have worked with Mr. Scott; I have worked with Mrs. Maloney, Ms. Velazquez, all concerned about the Northeast and the Sandy reforms that were necessary to learn the lessons. We have included those reforms in this bill. I sat down countless hours with the ranking member. She shared her phone number with me. She left me at the dance though, because before this thing was done, she walked away. We tried to get a bipartisan bill. We worked on this thing together; so to say something other than that is just not fair, it is not right. We have tried. You might not like the end product, but we have gone a great distance to get a bill that everybody can agree on, and I think we are going to get that today. I want to talk about a few things. We are $25 billion in debt, a deficit of $1.5 billion a year. This program is not sustainable. We have people who are building homes in harm's way. They get flooded multiple times. The chairman and I saw a homeowner who was flooded three times in 10 years. One homeowner let his house burn because he had to go save his kids who were getting swept away in floodwaters, and we rebuild those homes in the same location and risk the lives of firefighters and first responders to go save them. This policy is unacceptable and it is not compassionate. I hear my friends across the aisle say: You are going to hurt homeowners. Their rates are going to skyrocket. What? On average, for a year, the price of flood insurance, on average, will go up $20, less than $2 a month, and they are screaming bloody murder about that? And what do they get for it? I have a list of 30 things of great reform we get in this bill to help homeowners. Yes, highly subsidized properties in a pre-FIRM space are going to pay a little more, a little higher escalator, but we spend a billion dollars on mitigation helping people flood-proof their homes, helping people get bought out of their home and get to higher ground so they don't have to live in a home that is continually flooded. I don't know if you have lived in a flood home, but it ain't fun. It is horrible. Get them out. A billion dollars for that program. We help communities with their mapping. We give them options to map, and we give them an appeals process in their mapping. Great reform, we set up a private market. Now, you don't have to take the private market, but you have an option to get a private plan that might have a better rate than the government offers you. You have a choice--a choice, God forbid--a choice that gives you a better price. By the way, when we get the private market in, we all float our risk to the private sector. When a disaster hits Texas or Florida, it is not just the taxpayers who bear all the burden. We have private companies in play. That is a great thing. This is a good bill. This is a bipartisan bill. Let's stand together and reform a program to help the homeowner and our national debt.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Emmer, my colleague and friend from the neighboring State of Minnesota, for offering such a commonsense piece of legislation. I frequently hear horror stories of fraud and abuse. All of us stand against fraud and abuse. I have a news flash for everybody: This law doesn't change that fraud is illegal. It was illegal before this bill and it will be illegal after this bill. Fraud is illegal. All we are doing is saying we are going to keep the promise that all of us say that we have to small entrepreneurs and startups to make sure that they get seed capital and make sure they can thrive and grow and create jobs in our community. All we are trying to do is give clarity to what constitutes a nonpublic offering. What is wrong with clarity? What is wrong with bright lines that they know that they can operate in between without violating the rule? This is simple. It is straightforward, it is common sense, and it supports everything we say we support, which is small businesses, and I think this is a great piece of legislation.

Mr. DUFFY. I would ask all of my colleagues to stand together. Let's not play partisanship with the smallest businesses in our communities, the ones that we both agree create jobs. This is a time for unity. Let's work together, especially when it is common sense. I love the passion from the ranking member, but on this one, it is passion without a cause. It makes sense. It gives bright lines. Let's stand up for small businesses that create jobs in our community. Mr. Emmer's bill does that. I ask us all to stand up and support small businesses and this bill.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I am not recorded because I was absent. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 591.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I am not recorded because I was absent due to travel delays. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 569, YEA on Roll Call No. 570, and NAY on Roll Call No. 571.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, today, Congress will have an opportunity to vote on legislation that will bolster protections for whistleblowing patriots, while vastly improving care for veterans at the VA. The Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Protection Act is the product of hundreds of hours of Congressional hearings, meetings with stakeholders, and hard work by dozens of lawmakers here in Washington, to make sure that the tragic abuse that Dr. Kirkpatrick faced will never happen again. As some of you may know, Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick was a clinical psychologist at the VA in Tomah, WI. He was a veteran, a graduate of Northwestern University, and a caring individual who dedicated his career to providing innovative treatments for veterans suffering from PTSD. Most notably, he created a yoga program to help vets at the VA in Chicago. He was known to be very well-liked by the patients he served. In 2009, Dr. Kirkpatrick expressed concerns that his patients were being heavily overmedicated. It became so bad, he said, that he was unable to properly do his job. He wanted to do what was right for veterans, and as a veteran himself, he couldn't stand to see how careless some of the VA staff were being with high levels of dangerous medications. Unfortunately, instead of looking into Dr. Kirkpatrick's claims, the facility's chief of staff told him to mind his own business, and to instead focus on his own work. Shortly thereafter, Dr. Kirkpatrick was called to a disciplinary meeting and given a written reprimand. This type of retaliation went on for months. Then, in July, Dr. Kirkpatrick complained again that a dangerous veteran had not been properly discharged, despite recommendations from a treatment team. A week after making the complaint, Dr. Kirkpatrick was fired from the VA. He was devastated. He begged for an opportunity to stay, and expressed concerns that he had been given too many complex cases, and that the emotional toll was too high. Again, his concerns were ignored. That night, Dr. Kirkpatrick wrote a note to his girlfriend in Chicago, another to the kennel he wanted to take care of his dog, and one final note for the mailman. It read: ``Please call 911--tell them to go to red barn building.'' He had taken his own life. He was 38 years old. Dr. Kirkpatrick's death was the product of a broken system--a system that encourages retaliation against whistleblowers, while ignoring the underlying causes of their concerns. If Dr. Kirkpatrick's death wasn't tragic enough, a subsequent investigation at the VA found that a patient had died from ``mixed drug toxicity'', and that Dr. Kirkpatrick's concerns were completely warranted. Not only did whistleblower retaliation cost Dr. Kirkpatrick his life, it cost the life of a patient as well. That's why I urge you all to vote yes on the Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Protection Act. A yes vote means that VA personnel will no longer be able to access a whistleblower's medical records as means of discrediting them, which a separate investigation found happens far too often. A yes vote means that federal agencies have to notify the Office of Special Counsel when a suicide takes place. A yes means clear disciplinary actions for supervisors who retaliate against whistleblowers, training for supervisors on how to properly respond, and a requirement that employees are made aware of the mental health services at their disposal. A yes vote also means keeping upholding normal burdens of proof to strengthen protections for employees. This legislation calls for the Inspector General, Office of Special Counsel, or a Merit Systems Protection Board Administrative Judge to ``determine'' that a supervisor has committed a prohibited personnel action, meaning through the normal preponderance of the evidence for any other disciplinary action under Chapter 75 of title 5. This does not mean some arbitrary process for some bureaucrat to create later on. I want to be clear: this legislation strengthens protections for patriots--for those who are trying to do the right thing. For those who care about veterans and their safety. And for folks like Dr. Kirkpatrick, so that no one ever has to go through what he went through.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment and thank Ms. Castor and Mr. Ross for their hard work on this legislation. There are some here in this body who have said: if we let free markets into the National Flood Insurance Program that is run by the Federal Government, you are going to undermine the premiums that come into the national flood insurance pool. It is $25 billion in debt and is structured in a way where premiums can't rise. This doesn't undermine the program. What we are doing is saying: Listen, if you are in the National Flood Insurance Program right now, the way it is structured, there is only one place you can buy insurance. But this is a provision that will open up the market and let private companies come in and offer families better policies at better prices. If they don't, you can stay in the NFIP. You don't have to go private. You can stay government. But you give people a choice. It is like saying: Listen, you have to keep the United States Postal Service as your one carrier. You can't have FedEx or UPS. You don't get those choices. People want a choice. In Houston, instead of having only 20 percent of the people who had coverage, you might have had 40, 50, or 60 percent of the people who would have had coverage. More people would have had protection. I have got to tell you, I am disappointed in the partisanship. I am going to quote a person I rarely quote, but a person I truly like. She once said in the process of this bill: ``This is an example of real compromise.'' Then, on the substance of the bill, this fine woman from California said: ``We can have the opportunity for our constituents to have some choice. I think that is real compromise, that is substantive compromise, that is meaningful compromise, and that is the kind of compromise that reasonable people can engage in.'' Mr. Speaker, that was the gentlewoman from California, who is now in opposition to this bill. When this came up by itself--the same bill--last Congress, everyone voted for it. When it came up in committee, everyone voted for it. Democrats and Republicans voted for this bill because they knew that it was going to offer more choice and better prices to American families. That is why it was bipartisan. I think this is a moment where our Congress can stand together on behalf of the American people who don't have flood insurance, who don't have a reasonably priced policy. Let's stand with them today and pass the Ross-Castor bill. By the way, Ross and Castor are both from Florida. Two Florida Members, Republican and Democrat, came together. Let's get it done, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, this debate oftentimes can become confusing because banking law is confusing. We hear both sides take different positions on the Financial CHOICE Act and on Dodd-Frank, but I think the way you cut to the fat about whether Dodd-Frank was great law and does the Financial CHOICE Act actually make this law way better, I think we have to look at a couple simple factors. Big banks brought us to the crisis in 2008. The question for my friends across the aisle and people watching this debate is: Because of Dodd-Frank, have big banks gotten smaller or have big banks gotten bigger? The answer is: Big banks have gotten bigger. If you go to rural Wisconsin, small community banks and credit unions that help grow businesses and help provide to capital to our families are going out of business. Big Wall Street banks don't set up shop in rural Wisconsin. So the little guy is getting hurt and the big guys are doing really well. You have got to ask yourself: Who supports the Financial CHOICE Act? You have the NFIB protecting small businesses, the Independent Community Bankers of America, the National Association of Federally- Insured Credit Unions, and the Credit Union National Association. Credit unions and small banks support this bill. Who doesn't support this bill? Well, if you look to The Washington Post: Hensarling, our chairman, faces opposition from big-bank CEOs that like Dodd-Frank. They hate the Financial CHOICE Act. Another quote from The Wall Street Journal: ``Big banks have an unexpected message for President-elect Trump: Don't trash the Dodd- Frank Act.'' Big banks hate this bill, and little banks and little credit unions love it. If you want to know where people stand on this, go to your small community banker, go to your credit union, ask them about Dodd- Frank, and they will give you an earful. Then ask them: Do you like the Financial CHOICE Act? They will sit back and give you a small, slow clap. Let's do what is right for the American people and the small banks and small credit unions. Let's join together, pass H.R. 10, and give a win to the little guy.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on Monday, June 12, 2017, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.